The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Jeremy Petzold on Thursday 06/Sep/2001, @11:42
|
every one keeps refering to ximian v. KDE but remember that ximian is a company and has Redcarpet and evolution as product. KDE is a not profit Org and would therefor not have some features that ximian does. however, since KDE is more feature ritch and easier to integrat stuff into thanks to Kparts, I think it would be realy cool if TheKompany.com came out with its own version of KDE that it could use to leverege its app onto. then one could see a redcarpet type application and TheKompany.com has an outlook type app that does what evolution will do. as far as it is now though, comparing ximian to kde is like comparing apples to oranges, it would be better to compare the stock Gnome DE to KDE.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Please, a standard installation of KDE
by Alain on Thursday 06/Sep/2001, @13:58
|
> I think it would be realy cool if TheKompany.com came out with its own version of KDE
O please, no... It's enough complex now with as many KDE as distros...
As I already said elsewhere, I think that it would be better to define a standard KDE installation to be used by all the distros.
I don't speak about the compilation mode, but about the name of directories used and so...
I have read yesterday that for compiling a KDE app on Mandrake 8.0, it is necessary to do something like export KDEDIR=/usr/ What a foolish thing !! If Mandrake don't know how to install KDE, I wish that the KDE team explain how to do...
I repeat (sorry...) : the definition of a standard installation of KDE would be very useful for all the users.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Gaute Lindkvist on Thursday 06/Sep/2001, @14:14
|
KParts is not something unique to KDE.
GNOME has Bonobo, which does about the same job, but is based on
CORBA, whereas KDE chose to go its own way.
Red Carpet and Evolution may be Ximians products, but they are just as free
as the rest of GNOME and KDE.
Why is this any different than the fact that Trolltech has Qt as a product (free), and this is used by KDE. Both things are perfectly fine.
Btw. Ximian and The Kompany should not be compared too much. All of Ximians products are GPL, The Kompany makes proprietary products, which is fine, but
mean that they can never be part of KDE.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by John Porter on Thursday 06/Sep/2001, @14:44
|
Yes, but Ximian's main buisness is GNOME, while KDE is not Trolltech's work.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Loranga on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @01:16
|
Also remember that Ximian has a lot of influence on the GNOME core development. TheKompany just make applications.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by John Porter on Thursday 06/Sep/2001, @14:46
|
1. how is Galeon better than Konqueror?
2. how is Evolution's email features better than Kmail's?
3. updating
up to the distro
4. configuration
up to the distro
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Gaute Lindkvist on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @02:52
|
Galeon better than Konqueror:
1. Faster, both startup and rendering.
2. Better and more solid rendering.
3. Better support for plugins and java
4. Better handling of bookmarks (including the great auto-bookmarks feature
5. A fantastic feature in which you specify the default downloading-directory in
your configuration, and never have to deal with the whole "save as"-dialog
for downloading again.
6. Optional tabbed-browsing
Konqueror does have some neato features like more elegant cookie-handling and
anti-aliased fonts.
Evolution better than KMail:
1. Much, much better GUI
2. Faster
3. Included groupware
4. Incredibly elegant filter-handling
5. Incredibly elegant integration with GPG
6. Great search-features
KMail does have some better features like Outlook-importing.
Updating:
You have a very easy solution, that is really not good enough. THe distros
mostly freeze such packages between releases. Your own updating make
sure you can have the newest and best packages at all times. The only
distro that does this well enough is Debian Unstable.
Configuration:
Your solution makes sure that configuration is different on all distributions.
Besides Ximians configuration-tools are incredibly slick and better integrated
with the desktop-environment.
Is it really that hard to see that some things are actually better in GNOME?
KDE is NOT better at absolutely everything.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Cory Johnson on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @07:40
|
Galeon better than Konqueror:
1. Faster, both startup and rendering.
Opening konqueror inside KDE takes no time at all. And I think khtml is faster than gecko because like IE, it progressivly renders the page.
2. Better and more solid rendering.
Maybe. But not for 99% of most sites. The other 1% are nonstandard, sites with buggy HTML that Konqueror wants to avoid (such as sites with the <nobr> tags), but could support if it wanted to. I think the next release of KDE will fix most of these issues.
3. Better support for plugins and java
I think you have this the other way around.
4. Better handling of bookmarks (including the great auto-bookmarks feature
I would not say better, the auto-bookmarks feature is nice.. But I like the bookmarks in the extended sidebar of Konqueror better.
5. A fantastic feature in which you specify the default downloading-directory in your configuration, and never have to deal with the whole "save as"-dialog
for downloading again.
You can specify the default downloading directory in Konqueror too. The avoiding save as feature sounds cool tho. However, does galeon have the ability to drag links to directories to save them? I think not.
6. Optional tabbed-browsing
Yeah, I wish Konqueror had this.
Konqueror does have some neato features like more elegant cookie-handling and
anti-aliased fonts.
Evolution better than KMail:
1. Much, much better GUI
That's quite subjective. In fact, I hate libgal (helixcode/ximian's widgets). Whole Evolution tries to be Outlook Express 5.0, KMail tries to be like PegususMail/Eudora/and Outlook Express 4.0. I think that is a huge difference there.
2. Faster
Seem same speed to me.
3. Included groupware
Again, this isn't the goal of KMail. Those features can be put into other apps.
4. Incredibly elegant filter-handling
So is KMail's.
5. Incredibly elegant integration with GPG
So is KMail's.
6. Great search-features
So is KMail's.
KMail does have some better features like Outlook-importing.
Updating:
You have a very easy solution, that is really not good enough. THe distros
mostly freeze such packages between releases. Your own updating make
sure you can have the newest and best packages at all times. The only
distro that does this well enough is Debian Unstable.
Actually, several other distros give you great updating tools. Mandrake and SuSE seem to be filled with KDE users, and they do.
Besides, redcarpet always has old packages (from my experience).
Configuration:
Your solution makes sure that configuration is different on all distributions.
Besides Ximians configuration-tools are incredibly slick and better integrated
with the desktop-environment.
Yes, but.. they do not work reliably under many circumstances.
Is it really that hard to see that some things are actually better in GNOME?
KDE is NOT better at absolutely everything.
1. true
2. true
3. I think GNOME still has not caught up with KDE 2.0. Do you know why? Because it lacks a stable compartment architecture that is in use by many apps. KDE 2.x has this. Gnome 1.0/1.2/1.4 doesn't. GNOME 2 will, but currently it is a bunch of test apps (now that Gtk2 is almost frozen, that should gradually change).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Spark on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @10:39
|
> Opening konqueror inside KDE takes no time at all. And I think khtml is faster than gecko because like IE, it progressivly renders the page.
Sorry, but that was a poor statement. :)
Unfortunatly (for you) Gecko features much better progressive page rendering than KHTML. That's why KHTML performes very badly on slow connections (and does not even work with constantly streaming content like webchats), it really shines for fast connections and local files.
Startup time is indeed nothing we should worry about. For some configurations Konqueror may be faster, for other configurations, Galeon may be faster. That's pointless.
> 2. Better and more solid rendering.
Here you (Cory) are right. I was impressed by the latest KHTML versions, it mostly renders "reallife" websites even better than Gecko. Partly because KHTML supports a lot of proprietory IE tags (Gecko does not).
Gecko has still more features (in the DHTML department), but most of them aren't used today or used very rarely.
> 3. Better support for plugins and java
> I think you have this the other way around.
Yep, I think Konqueror has better plugin support... I don't know about Java though, I rarely use it.
> I would not say better, the auto-bookmarks feature is nice.. But I like the bookmarks in the extended sidebar of Konqueror better.
It's a matter of taste of course, but Galeon really has a lot of amazing bookmark features. Like the "smart bookmarks". For example you can show those smart bookmarks in a toolbar and they will show up with an input box. You can insert text there and it's used as part of the bookmark. There are so many features, it's unbelievable. :) It really shows that the Galeon developers spend their WHOLE time on the GUI (nothing else).
You can say what you want, but the Konqueror shell just can't compete with the Galeon shell. You can compare Konqueror with Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer doesn't stand a chance against Galeon as well (as the GUI).
And if you think you know Galeon: Make sure to check the latest version, it's unbelievable how fast they progress.
> You can specify the default downloading directory in Konqueror too. The avoiding save as feature sounds cool tho. However, does galeon have the ability to drag links to directories to save them? I think not.
That works with Konqueror? Let me see...
Yeah, that worked. But Konqueror hung after moving the file to trash. Damn. Fortunatly it wasn't crashed, it just hung for a few minutes! I thought I had lost all this text! :)
> Yeah, I wish Konqueror had this.
Agreed, Tabbes are the number one feature of Galeon. Never saw them implemented that great.
I don't comment all those mailer questions. It's a matter of taste. Evolution IS great. But KMail is great as well. While KMail is clean and simple, Evolution is powerfull and has some very neat features which makes your life easier.
> Because it lacks a stable compartment architecture that is in use by many apps.
Is "compartment" a mixture between "component" and "parts"? ;)
Yes it's quite nice. But guess what? It's not THAT important.
And it's not true, that Gnome 1.4 doesn't has it. It has.
Bonobo is already there. It's just not used that much yet (Nautilus beeing the exception).
I'm getting tired of hearing "KDE is superior because of KParts" all the time. :)
To me it's mostly image, the practical gain is there, but not THAT important.
IMHO KDE and Gnome are too different, to be compared in a "A is better than B" way. Like GNU/Linux and Windows or XFree and DirectFB.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Matthew Clark on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @18:16
|
It'd be neat to have tabbed browsing in Konqueror, but if you really want/like tabbed browsing, use Opera. It's tabbing is a bit more advanced than Galeon's is (mainly because it has the ability to have a unified workspace as well).
As for the rest of us who actually have the screen real estate (like most people), we'll use konqueror or mozilla.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Spark on Saturday 08/Sep/2001, @09:31
|
Oh no, how stupid (sorrysorry!).
Opera is one of the uglyst browser I know.
1) The HTML engine is crap.
2) Fonts are crap.
3) It's no KDE app, so what?
4) Tabbed more advanced than Galeon? LOL
The MDI of Opera is AWEFULL. I never liked it. I want tabs, not windows in windows!
And it does not even feature half of the features that Galeon feature! Err... you know what I mean. Tabs are pretty simple in Opera.
5) You are FORCED to use this tabs! Ugly!
6) The tabs bar does not disappear when only viewing one document, so screen estate is wasted all the time.
7) Screen estate? I use a 19" Monitor with 1600x1200 resolution. Surprised?
It's obvious, that you never worked with the latest versions of Galeon.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Josh on Friday 13/Sep/2002, @10:25
|
Why does Galeon provide faster download speeds when I use gnome compared to KDE?
I would much rather use KDE because its honestly easier on the eyes but at the same time it is all about the SPEED. Is there anything that I can do to boost the performance in KDE?
When I go to www.bandwidthplace.com with Gnome and Galeon I avge 1.5 - 1.8 Mbps
WHen I use KDE & Galeon I get about 1.0 - 1.3 Mbps
and most depressing of all is when I use Konqueror I get 500Kbps - 900Kbps
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by dc on Friday 13/Sep/2002, @14:06
|
Who knows if the test is accurate?
I'm on WinXP atm, and with ie6, I get 1 megabits per second (127.6 kilobytes per second), and on moz 1.1, I get 1.2 megabits per second (141.1 kilobytes per second).
With the second trial, I get 902.6 kilobits per second/110.2 kilobytes per second IE6, and 810.4 kilobits per second/98.9 kilobytes per second with Mozilla 1.1.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Gaute Lindkvist on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @16:31
|
I have to deal with the very untrue parts here first:
1. You think plugin-support is actually _better_ in konqueror? Yes, it may support some ActiveX in development-versions, but when it comes to standard plugins Mozilla (and thus Galeon) truly smashes Konqueror.
For instance, Konqueror claims to support Java fully, and Flash, but so far, in all the latest versions of KDE (I've used every version from the 2.0-betas), it has never worked properly. Java is slow, or doesn't work fully, and Flash just hangs and crashes any other browser apart from Netscape 4.x and the mozilla-based ones.
2. Opening Konqueror inside KDE _does_ take some time. Galeon launches instantly on my laptop, Konqueror 2.2 still uses around 3 seconds.
Even if some of your arguments against Red Carpet and Ximian Setup Tools are at least partially correct, it does not change the fact that GNOME _has_ these, while KDE has none whatsoever.. and even though you think they are not necessary, I do, and plenty of people do. Besides, my integration point is very valid, and so is my point on regular updating.
I'm not saying that GNOME is technically at KDEs level right now, but there ARE areas where GNOME is superior, and the KDE-people seem to be incredibly defensive on this point (not the developers... the users).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Cory Johnson on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @18:14
|
Your computer must be on crack or something.
1. It's a bitch getting java to work in mozilla or galeon.
2. Speed of Java execution has nothing to do with konqueror or galeon. It has everything to do with the speed of the jdk.
3. Konqueror loads in less than one second in KDE. Make sure you use "kfmclient openProfile webbrowsing" (the dcop interface to launch it). Galeon loads in less than one second in GNOME. Seems like a tie to me.
4. Flash has always worked for me in Konqueror. I was amazed on how integrated it seemed.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Gaute Lindkvist on Saturday 08/Sep/2001, @04:59
|
It is simple to get java to work in Mozilla... it might not have a GUI-tool, but it is easy. The problem is that the GUI-interface for selecting java-vm in Konqueror has never worked _at all_ for me.
ln -s /pathtojavavmplugin /pathtomozilla/plugins
Thats it, and it works perfectly.
Perhaps Konqueror seems slow at java because it hasn't used the correct plugin, but falled back to kaffe or something, in which case it is probably both mine and Konquerors fault.
Anyhow, even if I misunderstood the plugin-issue, Mozilla/Galeon still renders better, has better support for current and coming standards (like xml), and gecko does not hang bad as khtml sometimes does. The only big issues where khtml is better is anti-aliasing (but AFAIK Mozilla can be compiled with Qt for the same result), and memory-consumption (and not a big difference here).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Jeopardy on Friday 26/Oct/2001, @10:52
|
Somebody's computer has been smoking way too much crack.
Konqueror's plugin support is excellent, although it is at most on par with Galeon's. Flash works wonderfully in Konqueror. Those of you who think Konqueror has problems with Java, y'all must be trippin'. Because I use the latest 1.4 beta java plugin with both browsers and Konqueror actually loads it faster. Believe it or not. I play Yahoo games quite a bit so I know what I'm saying.
Oh yeah, and startup speed. Apparently those who use Gnome or some other WM complain that Konqueror's start up is slow. Answer: because when you load up Konqueror (or any other kde app for that matter) in an environment other than kde, it has to run the kdeinit scripts and some other stuff first to get its act together. It's a testimony to the beautiful component integration that exists in KDE...once that whole engine is started up, everything else loads up pretty quickly. For me, first time I load up Konqueror takes about 2-3 seconds. Any other KDE application after that loads up almost instantly.
I don't even worry about that as much as the application's speed/responsiveness. I find Konqueror to be a many times more responsive than Galeon (which means it responds to button clicks and stuff like that pretty much instantaneously). That is why I still prefer Qt to GTK+, because it simply seems to be better designed and faster responding. And KDE's component architecture also appears for me to be more responsive and quicker than GNOME's in all my experience with both environments. No further comments about that.
And I don't fathom what some of you folks are saying about bloatishness. I personally find many gnome applications to feel more "bloatish" than KDE applications. KDE feels mature, stable and responsive. Gnome always feels like an obese beta beast in most of its apps .. Galeon, GIMP, Evolution, etc. So I don't know what the heck you fellas are talking about.
Speaking of Galeon, I agree with that previous comment saying that tabs are its best feature. If there's anything I would really miss in Galeon, it's the tabs. Opera's tabs suck. Galeon's tabs ROCK. Konqueror needs to get tabs. As for smart bookmarks, I don't really miss them. Because in Konqueror I can easily type gg:search_request in the address bar to search the internet, or fm:progname to search for software - no time wasted, no productivity lost for me.
It is for these reasons that I have chosen Konqueror as my default web browser. (and by the way, I use enlightenment for a desktop, so I'm pretty much on neutral ground). I have used Galeon for a while and I found it to be pretty cool (in fact, I still use it from time to time), but Konqueror is simply better. 'nuff said.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Nusa on Friday 26/Oct/2001, @13:08
|
I don't really like galeon's tabbing much.. it feels way too limited compared to Opera's. For example, in Opera, you can switch from single page view to multiple cascades of windows (or tiles of windows).
Seriously, I think opera was the first app that implements MDI right. for any future tabbing/mdi implementation in konqueror, I think it should probably be moddled after Opera's (since it is a superset of Galeon's tabs).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by SB on Friday 26/Oct/2001, @13:09
|
khtml is still the most standards compliant engine around.. not to mention the fact that konqueror loads pages faster and reders better than mozilla or galeon. it also feels much more responsive, and the gui is consistant (the scrollbars are actually consistant with scrollbars in other apps :-) ) also, I think more plugins work with konqueror but I'm not sure (I haven't setup java or flash with mozilla yet).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Michael Bushey on Friday 26/Oct/2001, @16:48
|
>Java is slow, or doesn't work fully
Yup, sounds like you've just described Java.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by mjander on Monday 30/Sep/2002, @11:04
|
Hi,
Personally i disagree with most KDE fan posts. You must be using some
misconfigured system, because i mesaured resource usage of both KDE and
GNOME, and the latter always used less resources (MEM and CPU), needs less "kdeinit" style daemons, and integrates better with different software. If you like KDE, great, but please stop
flaming (those comments about smoking crack... please stop it).
The distribution thats being used is an important factor. For example SuSE works best using
KDE, Gnome doesn't work well on SuSE, because it includes stone age like versions, that aren't
properly setup. RedHat or Debian work equally well with Gnome or KDE.
I would like to make a callout to stop the flames.
Best regards.
mjander
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by fault on Monday 30/Sep/2002, @15:05
|
> (those comments about smoking crack... please stop it).
Alright, stop shooting up heroin... You're replying to posts from nearly a year ago (Oct 2001). Did you notice the timestamp?
Anyways, whatever they said a year ago isn't necessarily true anymore with the rapid pace of development in KDE and GNOME. They are both getting close to each other in terms of feature sets. Use whatever one you prefer and stop catering to trolls.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Marty on Sunday 06/May/2007, @19:27
|
I agree!
Now, where's my heroin?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist). I found this because, as a new linux user, I'm still trying to decide which to use. I'm using Debian, which defaulted to gnome, but I installed KDE, too.
I'll have to admit, I like Kontact much better than Evolution for email/calendar. And Konqueror is a nice file manager. But when I was running Suse with KDE, after editing the menu, it went to hell and wouldn't display a lot of the programs until I added some fake entries, for some reason. Don't know if I did something it didn't like, or if the menu editor is just buggy. But gnome isn't very easy to edit either.
-- Marty
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by aleXXX on Thursday 06/Sep/2001, @23:50
|
Well, I don't feel well saying "KDE is better than Gnome" because I tried Gnome only for a very short time.
But I what I can really say, you can configure konqy any way you want to make it look whatever you want, to have menus und toolbars the way you want, you can use styles to make your whole KDE look different, you can use your own funky icons, and I'm only aware of exactly two features konqy doesn't have, otherwise it has more or less all features you could think of :-)
Bye
Alex
what makes me think, having a menu editor like the toolbar editor would be a good idea...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Spark on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @10:45
|
> to have menus und toolbars the way you want
Not really. You can't edit the menus (and they are a mess btw) and you can't edit the toolbars like you can do with Galeon (try it). For example I never managed to get the stupid extra buttons of the toolbar and the locationbar into the standard toolbar.
And did you try to move the toolbars around while dragging them on their handle? It's unbelievable, how bad that works. :) I messed up everything and had a hard time dragging them back like they were. ;)
> you can use styles to make your whole KDE look different
Sure, and so you can use Gtk engines. ;)
> you can use your own funky icons
Hmm well. Galeon can use the Nautilus Icons. Nautilis themes are pretty cool. I don't know how to choose some nicer buttons for Konqueror without changing my desktop theme. Do you?
> otherwise it has more or less all features you could think of :-)
Nah, you should play a bit more with Galeon. ;)
I used both Galeon and Konqueror a long time and only Konqueror for the last time, it indeed IS lacking a lot of features. Most important of all is the tabbed browsing.
> what makes me think, having a menu editor like the toolbar editor would be a good idea...
Even better would be a clean and simple menu structure, not the mess that Konqueror menu's currently are... Compare that to the Galeon menus.
I don't want to bitch, Konqueror is great. Just not perfect...
It mostly suffers from beeing an "all in one" app, which isn't the best idea IMHO.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by John Kerin on Friday 07/Sep/2001, @18:07
|
I think you should compare Konqueror and Nautilus. Konqueror in that case beats Nautilus hands down in web browsing. Compare these two because both are split file browsing/web browsing applications.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Spark on Saturday 08/Sep/2001, @09:34
|
Yep, but Nautilus does not even TRY to be a Webbrowser. It's just a filebrowser with the ability to show HTML pages.
The same should Konqueror do and there should be an alternative KHTML Webbrowser that concentrates ONLY on webbrowser (so it can compete with Galeon).
ATM there is no equivalent to Galeon for KDE.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: KDE vs GNOME
by Ez on Saturday 02/Aug/2003, @14:03
|
Galeon is the worst web browser I have ever used. It's just terrible.
The un-intuitive means of using the tabs, the shoddy, slow page rendering.
Aweful.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
